AAD Design Pty Ltd v Brisbane City Council

AAD Design Pty Ltd applied for three development permits from the Brisbane City Council, each seeking permission to make a material change of use of the land to “residence not complying with house code”. The Council refused to proceed with the applications. The applicant appealed to the Building and Development Dispute Resolution Committee, which dismissed the appeal on the basis that the application was not properly made. The applicant then appealed to the Planning and Environment Court, which also dismissed the appeal. AAD Design Pty Ltd now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether student accommodation falls within the definition of a house or a multi-unit development under the Brisbane City Plan 2000 (as amended). The court considered whether the term "house" included student accommodation and whether the applications could be considered as a multi-unit development. The court also examined the process by which the applicant made the application and the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal by the Dispute Resolution Committee.

The court found that the term "house" did not include student accommodation and therefore the applications did not fall within the definition of a house. The court also found that the applications could not be considered as a multi-unit development as they did not meet the criteria set out in the Brisbane City Plan 2000. The court further found that the application was not properly made as it did not include sufficient information to enable the Council to assess the application. The court dismissed the appeal and found that the application was not properly made.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The parties were ordered to provide written submissions as to costs in accordance with Practice Direction No 2 of 2010 (paragraph 52).